It's
funny how the conclusion of an election can completely alter media
reportage. The day after the Democrat Public Relations Arm (DPRA)
- euphemistically known as the "mainstream media" - got its party
elected, they actually started broaching a couple of real issues.
Such as amnesty for illegal aliens.

In
my election piece I warned that Democrat
ascendancy would mean a full court press to grant amnesty-by-another-name
to illegals. And I retired election night as one of the voices in
the darkness, emitting admonitions that a 420-foot-diameter SETI
dish would have had trouble detecting amidst the talking-head static.
I awakened to a world in which it seemed that the DPRA couldn't talk
enough about the aliens who have landed and how they would be allowed
to stay. Writing at Forbes.com, Laurie
Kellman wrote,

Bush
could see one victory come his way under the new Democratic-controlled
House - on immigration reform. The Republican-led House balked at
Bush's plans for a guest worker program and for the Senate's plan
for creating a path toward citizenship for millions of undocumented
workers. Democrats tended to favor it.

Funny,
though, why wasn't the DPRA telling you about this before the election?
Could it be that there was something they didn't want you to know?
Is it that they wanted you to focus more on Foley than immigration
folly? More on the preacher Haggard than the haggard face of America?
Ah, me and my flights of fancy.

A
cursory examination of election statistics sheds light on why the
DPRA kept the invasion of America off the radar screen. If you look
at the groups that constitute 85 percent of legal immigrants and virtually
all illegal ones - those of Third World ancestry - you'll see that
they supported the DPRA's candidates by overwhelming margins.

Black
voters led the pack, voting Democrat by an 89 percent to 11 percent
margin. More ominously, Hispanics, the largest minority and by far
the fastest growing immigrant group, went Democrat 70 percent to 30
percent. Asians were right behind, pulling the "D" lever 68 percent
of the time. In contrast, whites once again gave the nod to Republicans,
albeit by the slim margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.

This
brings us to something that is usually left unsaid, despite being
an ever more weighty millstone around the neck of a traditionalist
movement frantically treading water. Liberals are importing
their voters.

Do
you understand the gravity of what I just told you? Let's examine
some more statistics.

When
the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (it created the situation wherein
85 percent of immigrants hail from the Third World. Gracias, Ted Kennedy)
was passed, white people were 89 percent of the U.S. population. After
four decades of culture-jarring migration, however, whites constitute
only 69 percent of the nation. And unless our misbegotten immigration
policies undergo radical change, this trend will continue unabated.

This
is why I can only shake my head and register a Mona Lisa smile when
I hear commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage assert
that the Republicans lost because they abandoned conservative principles.
This is only partly true. To illuminate the picture entirely, we have
to ask why conservatives were ignored.

This
isn't rocket science. While the issue is multifaceted, the fact is
that the constituency that has been keeping the traditionalist movement
afloat is steadily losing population share. And lower population share
equals less clout. Is it any wonder then that Bill Clinton said that
he can't wait for the day when whites are a minority in America?

The
truth is that one has to be blind to miss the writing on the wall.
On election night, Pat Robertson interviewed pollster John Zogby and
registered surprise that Arizona, the "state of Barry Goldwater,"
would lean left the way it did this election. Zogby quickly interjected,
pointing out that due to "demographic changes" Arizona is no longer
the conservative state it once was.

Of
course, "demographic changes" is a euphemistic way of referring to
an influx of socialist-minded third worlders, a population shift that
has transformed erstwhile conservative bastions into liberal strongholds.
Understanding this, John Zogby mentioned that Arizona and Virginia
were the next "fifty/fifty states," alluding to the fact that liberals'
numbers will soon equal those of conservatives. The funny thing about
fifty/fifty, though, is that it's not a destination but a point on
a journey. And if you want to know what lies just a few stops down
the road, look at California (does it bother anyone else that the
governor of the most populous state has a foreign accent?).

Once
a state whose politics was epitomized by Ronald Reagan, it has mutated
into a polyglot cauldron of multiculturalism, with Nancy Pelosi as
its political poster girl. Speaking of the Gipper, do you remember
his landslide re-election victory in 1984? Running against Walter
Mondale, he won every state except for Mondale's home state of Minnesota.
But that was when the "demographics" of the nation were quite different.
If Reagan were alive today, he could never win a forty-nine-state
victory. In fact, with the majority of Californians now being of Third
World heritage, I venture to say that Reagan couldn't even win his
home state.

Why
the groups in question exhibit these voting patterns is grist for
a different day. Obviously, no one is born with socialist tendencies,
but cultural differences are undeniable. And this is why I have to
laugh when I hear conservatives rationalize that they will be able
to woo Hispanic voters.

It's
as if they're ignorant of the political climate in the Third World.
Do they ever wonder why socialism and its dark cousin, communism,
have long found homes in Mexico and Central and South America? Do
they understand that the Mexican Revolution in 1910 was largely socialist
in nature and led to the persecution of the Church? Do they realize
that Zapatista guerrillas are working to establish socialism
in Mexico right now? Does it faze them that socialists Evo Morales
and Michelle Bachelet were elected in, respectively, Bolivia and Chile?
How about the fact that Marxist Daniel Ortega was just elected in
Nicaragua? And then, of course, there's the piPce de résistance, Fidel
Castro's philosophical and stylistic soul mate, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

The
fact is that people get the government they deserve because, one way
or another, they make the government what it is. And it takes a very
special head-in-the-sand kind of naivete to believe that these socialistic
immigrants will magically be transformed into lovers of the American
way upon touching U.S. terra firma.

What
will happen - what is, in fact, happening - is that these newcomers
will see a land of milk and honey, one far richer than whence they
came, and their redistributive appetites will be whetted all the more.
Jorge Bush couldn't win a majority of Hispanic votes even after rendering
a radio
address in Spanish to commemorate Cinco De Mayo and compassionately
conserving the budget into the stratosphere. What makes anyone think
a real conservative ever could?

So,
assimilation? It's a pipe dream. If these new "hard working" immigrants
will assimilate into anything, it will be our third millennium culture
of entitlement.

As
far as the sword of Damocles of amnesty goes, there is a sad irony
here. Traditionalist voters were angry at Bush, in part, because he
has done little about the invasion of our nation and supports de facto
amnesty. The Republican House blocked Bush's amnesty plan. So, to
punish Bush, they voted to end Republican control of the House, thereby
removing the only impediment to amnesty and giving Bush exactly what
he wants. Good show that, gringos.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

But
the leftists are euphoric; now they can double the size of one of
their voting blocks in one swift, culture-rending blow. It's as if
these seducers importuned you to vault them to power this past election,
saying "Vote for us and we'll respect you in the morning." You did.
They won't.

So,
I have no good news for you, traditionalist brethren. Because if you
think our fearless leaders aren't listening to you now, just wait
until they naturalize millions more mail-order socialists.

Selwyn Duke lives in Westchester County, New
York. He's a tennis professional, internet entrepreneur and writer whose
works have appeared on various sites on the Internet, including Intellectual
Conservative, nenewamerica.us (Alan Keyes) and Mensnet. Selwyn has traveled
extensively in his life, visiting exotic locales such as India, Morocco
and Algeria and quite a number of other countries while playing the international
tennis circuit.